Wednesday, September 05, 2007

The N&O Speaks Out; Catotti & Curtis

This morning’s N&O published a powerful editorial commending Judge Smith for sentencing ex-DA Mike Nifong to jail. The editors noted,

Smith was the right judge to consider the issue decided last week. A year ago, during a hearing on the Duke lacrosse case, he asked Nifong if he had any information in DNA tests results that could be useful to the students' case. Nifong did—DNA from other men was found on material police collected from the dancer. But Nifong denied having it, and was unconvincing when he insisted that although his answers in court were incorrect, he didn't intend to lie.

As Smith eloquently explained, last week's contempt hearing was not about the merits of the case but about lawyers telling the truth in court. District attorneys, of all people, need to keep in mind that their first duty is as officers of the court, not advocates for convictions.

Meanwhile, the first round of campaign finance reports are out in the race for the Durham City Council. Incumbent Diane Catotti (pictured below, showing her support last fall for Mike Nifong) received money from one and only one arts and sciences faculty member: Kim Curtis, of political science.* [Catotti did receive funds from a law professor.]

Catotti, teaming with Victoria Peterson on the “Something Happened” ticket, did everything she could to block an independent inquiry of the Durham Police Department’s mishandling of the lacrosse case; and then demanded a hard quota on Whichard Commission appointees. Why? Because the case was not, evidently, about police and prosecutorial misconduct but instead about “race and gender issues.”

Curtis, meanwhile, is the Group of 88 member who—in writing—suggested that two lacrosse players in her spring 2006 class were guilty of (at minimum) conspiracy to obstruct justice. The grades of those two players then . . . coincidentally . . . plunged. One, Kyle Dowd, sued the university, prompting an out-of-court settlement in which Duke adjusted his grade to “Pass.”

88 comments:

Ralph Phelan
said...

If Duke has any sense [1] they'll cut Curtis loose now (Lord knows they have sufficient reason to do so.) If anybody's going to say something actionable about the events preceding the settlement and thus drag Duke back into court, it's her.

[1] But I know they don't. It sure will be fun to see Duke & Curtis back in court. I wonder how long it will take?

And with professors like Curtis still roaming campus, exactly why do you parents pay that sinful tuition invoice to send your sons to Duke? In case you haven't noticed, they are not safe there. You should transfer them elsewhere, and send K.C. a note thanking him.

It's always interesting to take note of what these people do for a living.

Durham provides a fertile breeding ground. LOL!

From the H-S today:

DURHAM -- Incumbent Diane Catotti and challenger Farad Ali have forged a substantial fundraising lead early in their election battle against eight other candidates for seats on the City Council.

Finance reports filed Tuesday show that Catotti, who's seeking her second four-year term, banked $11,149 through Aug. 28. She has received dozens of small donations, most in $100 chunks and many from big names in local affairs like Durham Technical Community College President Phail Wynn and former Councilwoman Sandy Ogburn.

Ali -- an executive with the N.C. Institute of Minority Economic Development who's making his first try for elective office -- had banked $8,968, according to the county Board of Elections.

His filing shows that Ali's benefited more from big donations than Catotti. Nearly half of his money -- $4,000 -- arrived as a single donation from Aleicia Bass, a real estate agent and developer.

Catotti and Ali each raised a lot more than the other candidates who filed campaign finance reports.

Those Durhamites who have complained that they should not be sued into bankruptcy get what they deserve when they elect this type of nitwit. If they reelect her, they are effectively mooning everyone who has been watching this atrocity unfold and deserve everything that's about to down on them.

As far as The Herald-Sun is concerned, the real question is why did the newspaper act as Mike Nifong's mouthpiece for so long, and how did the paper's ignorance of facts enable Nifong to keep up the charade that he had a case?

The Herald-Sun fueled the sham perpetrated by Nifong as much as any media outlet in the nation, and that is really saying something. If The Herald-Sun had reported the news in an unbiased manner, perhaps Nifong would not have been elected in November 2006. If, if, if.

Now the citizens of Durham will have to pay for the ignorance of what should have been the city's watchdog, The Herald-Sun. Also culpable, of course, is the city itself. And just as culpable are the citizens who voted to keep Nifong in office.

Here's one in response to the Kathy Rudy nonsense KC mentioned days ago:

Give us a break

Now let me get this straight, according to Kathy Rudy [Forum, Aug. 30] the only reason Michael Vick is being prosecuted for dog fighting is because he is black, farmers are just as guilty of animal torture as people who sponsor dog fights, horse racing is cruel, and that 25 years from now I am going to be munching on tofu while applauding gay feminist Latinos for making American life better.

I have a question for The Herald- Sun: Where do you find these people, and why do you insist on putting such delusional rants in the paper where I have to see them?

I can guarantee you that in that picture, they are talking about the lacrosse case. These are evil people, period. They were willing to lie and lie and lie and to push a lie, and to have three young men wrongfully thrown into prison and maybe killed -- for their damned ideology. What despicable people they are.

On the paper that Curtis gave Kyle Dowd an 'F', I wonder if she added the comment, "and I'll get your little dog too!" It must be nice to work at a university where there are no consequences for bad behavior. I can see why Curtis would want to stick around.

I can guarantee you that in that picture, they are talking about the lacrosse case. These are evil people, period. They were willing to lie and lie and lie and to push a lie, and to have three young men wrongfully thrown into prison and maybe killed -- for their damned ideology. What despicable people they are.

----------

Thanks for this concise summary and apt reminder.

She willfully made herself a walking, squawking, yakking billboard for Nifong, at a time when anyone with a fraction of a brain knew that Nifong was a racist crook -- the picture tells the story of what she is.

If Catotti is re-elected, the city has learned nothing, and will deserve every penny of punishment extracted (rightfully so) by the LAX lawyers. And I say this as a Durham resident and taxpayer.

1:51 (a Durham resident and taxpayer) writes: "If Catotti is re-elected, the city has learned nothing, and will deserve every penny of punishment extracted (rightfully so) by the LAX lawyers. And I say this as a Durham resident and taxpayer."

At least there is one honest, clear-thinking Durham resident.

Best grab for your wallet--some serious legal talent literally landed at RDU a few hours ago and are headed for the city vault. Your "elected officials" have all but assured that the city's financial clock will be cleaned by these elite legal thoroughbreds. Sorry you're going to pay for the fecal matter generated by your elected officials. From this outsider's perspective, however, I just can't wait for the next shoe to drop.

The fact that Curtis is employed at Duke and Catotti hasn't been drummed out of office tell me that no one has learned a damned thing. The LAX players need to squeeze every penny out of the turnip called Durham then never step foot in the state of NC again. Follow Gen. Sherman's lead. cmf

The most serious legal clock-cleaners in the country most indeed landed at RDU earlier --- and these little back-water Boss Hogg's in Durham can't even fathom how bad it is going to get. Remember "Deliverance?" HELLOOO Ned Beatty....squeal, you bas**rd, squeal. The combined IQ of every city attorney in Durham and for the DPD doesn't equal the shoe size of one of these guys. Loving this. And every Durham resident gets to watch it happen. I'll bet with the publication of KC's book, lots of formerly blase' Durham types are going to be plenty tired of the renewed expose of their slimy little pond.

Bill Anderson : I pretty much agree that these are evil people. They don't mind being evil, though. What really drives them crazy is when other people find out and their benevolent masquerade is useless.

Catotti's cash is showing all over Derm. Her signs are to be seen on every, it seems, street corner. No doubt she's a Green candidate who does not mind polluting visually and environmentally when it serves her. She will soon be joined by others jamming their signs alongside hers. For the moment she is pretty much the pioneer in political pollution. Cheers, JLJr

Debrah, it is amazing that those in Durham seem to have absolutely NO ability to learn from their mistakes, or the mistakes of others. First Nifong -- plowing ahead in spite of all warnings. NOW, Baker and crew plowing ahead in spite of warnings. What makes it REALLY hard to fathom is that they can actually SEE -- actually see -- what happened to Nifong when he did the same thing! Good grief, that is like seeing your older brother put his hand on the stove and getting the sh*t burned out of him, then doing the SAME THING yourself! My mother had a saying (she had a lot of sayings) for this stupidity: "I buy you books and buy and books, and what do you do? Eat the pages." cmf

If Durrhh settles, expect no one to lose their job: if the Grade Gremlin can stay employed at Duke - (at least on the books) - then it's likely any settlement via Durrhh will mirror Duke's. Confidential terms, likewise.

Deborah DeMott was not a member of the 88. Nor was any other Duke law school professor. Ms. DeMott is actually a pleasant and sensible teacher who specializes in corporate governance issues. God knows why she gave $100 to La Catotti though.

According to the Metro article, Collin Finnerty's top choice was to return to Duke to play with his friends, but his parents were concerned for his safety. I'll BET they were. He'd be a prime target for both the Durham cops and the Duke faculty, and easy to spot - 6'5",red hair, and a face splashed all over the media. If I were him I wouldn't go anywhere near Durham for years, if ever again.

You want to see some really pathetic revisionism being spewed by the 88 please check out today's Duke Chronicle thread at http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=b1473afa-520b-4d6a-96be-c068dff0b8ab#8d3f3f98-8e78-4b28-9888-165a1fdeb5cf and see "Duke Instructor" has to say. Some really unbelievable crap

Bill Anderson : I pretty much agree that these are evil people. They don't mind being evil, though. What really drives them crazy is when other people find out and their benevolent masquerade is useless.

9/5/07 2:40 PM

_______________________________

And when that happens, they suddenly claim even MORE victim status. How DARE you question our motives!! You are VICTIMIZING us!

Keep in mind that people like Catotti and Curtis were not interested in the facts of the case. To them, the LAX players were males, so that alone was enough for them to have to go to prison for being rapists. No more proof is needed in Wonderland.

The continued employment of Kim Curtis is a complete disgrace and one of the saddest aspects of this entire episode.

The only conclusion to draw is that Duke tolerates dishonesty from its faculty. It's particularly galling when you consider the fact that a Duke student was suspended for sending a private email containing a tasteless joke. Yet a Professor commits the worst possible ethical violation and suffers no penalty.

Students, alumni, parents, and faculty should all be sickened by her actions and the administration's lack of action.

Sorry to keep updating, but just wanted to tell all the Wonderland crew that the man at Barnes & Noble said the book has created lots of buzz in the store.

They have received many calls and people just walking in off the street asking about it.

Since it just came out yesterday, and because of demand, they have put more effort into getting things unpacked and getting up the display.....which now I'm told will be up for about 3 weeks instead of just one.

There is an interesting post at the Duke Chronicle where a guy calling himself a "Duke Instructor" give his very revisionist history of the good the gang of 88 were trying to accomplish (kind of sad these people teach). You can find it in the comment section of the "Post-lax, citations plummet" article. It looks like one of the 88 is trying to explain himself and trying out versions of a story to see what might get by ...FYI

re: 2:33's "The combined IQ of every city attorney in Durham and for the DPD doesn't equal the shoe size of one of these guys."

Come on, 2:33. The last 18 months should have taught us that you don't have to be a city slicker wearing a $5,000 suit to be a darned good lawyer. I'll bet Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan aren't thinking they'll come in here, walk all over these rubes, and leave with the deed to the city.

Ken Duke wrote at 6:22 PM,"I'll bet Barry Scheck and Brendan Sullivan aren't thinking they'll come in here, walk all over these rubes, and leave with the deed to the city."

-----

No, they're working their asses off (or will be soon), because they know that trials are won with dogged, methodical, thorough preparation, forging a solid knowledge of the facts and, in some cases, the science of your case -- NOT with City slickness and shiny suits.

And they will kick the asses of the Durham's "star" insurance hacks, again not because they're slick, but because they will be well prepared -- and because the facts are on their side.

Both sides would be VERY wise to settle. But if we have to roll the dice, I say the LAX lawyers will wipe the floor with the insurance jerks and will demolish the defense's usual, pathetic little bag of tricks.

While I support and acknowledge the influence that K.C. and this blog have had in exposing a terrible injustice, my personal family experience at Duke does not fit neatly with your "all good or all bad" senario. My son has had an outstanding academic and social experience at Duke. He will soon receive degrees in engineering and economics. Why is the tuition I choose, after much consideration, to pay, your concern?Duke Parent '08

Anonymous said... Is KC going to update his post to note that others from Duke donated to the candidate besides Professor Curtis? How does he miss this stuff? (I know; too busy talking about his book to fact check!)

Duke Instructor saidAs an instructor at Duke, I am glad to see this news. When I came here to graduate school, I was told by many, many people how Duke students were over-privileged rich kids with no social conscience, who were drunk all weekend (Wednesday - Monday) at a frat party, and who were only interested in college as a gateway to a high-paying career and the replication of the bourgeois lifestyle that produced them in the first place. I have found this to be quite untrue. Now, certainly there is an unfortunate group of Duke students who seem to think that James Spader was the hero of "Pretty in Pink"; and yes, a lot of Duke students are rich (like at any private university); and yes, they like to drink (like at any other place where 18-21 year-olds congregate). But I have found that the vast majority have a social conscience, have a real interest in the life of the mind, and are not considerably less responsible than any other bunch of college students. It is nice to see that these citations are down, both as an indication that Duke students are generally responsible, and as perhaps a retreat from the position held seemingly by local law enforcement and the University, that Duke students with any booze in them were a disaster waiting to happen.

I also went to a private university with lots of rich kids (though I, regrettably for me, and profitably for Fannie Mae, was not one of them); but my university trusted us with the small stuff, like drinking and partying. Our frat parties had university police present, but they weren't there to bust underage drinking or take away our truly abysmal pot; they were there for the students' protection. They wanted to prevent fights, rapes, alcohol poisonings, or people screaming in the middle of the night, and frankly, if you weren't a brawler, a rapist, or a screamer, you had a pretty good relationship with them. No one was afraid to call them with a real problem, and they often ran interference with the local police (to our constant appreciation). I read constantly and with considerable surprise about students at Duke being cited for having a beer. I don't remember this ever happening at my university, and it meant that the tenor of the social life was simply more relaxed, and less about transgression. Binge-drinking seems to work like voting in a free state: people are excited about it when they're 18, but then it becomes ordinary and they do it much less often with less interest, unless, of course someone tells them they aren't allowed to. Then it's all they can talk about.

Let's use this opportunity to turn over a new leaf, and start treating our undergrads like adults. I bet they will respond in kind. The Duke police are fantastic people; let the students see that they are interested in safety and general responsibility, not whether or not a 20 year-old has a cup of Miller High Life. No one wants to drink in a dangerous or uncomfortable environment if there is another option. And anyway, all the policing in the world won't stop disastrous partying; it requires the students themselves to be confident and mature enough to say, "Strippers? That's kind of lame. Will probably just end badly. And I have better things to do."And I wanted to add that the vast majority of the professors I know here (including several members of this so-called "88") also feel like most Duke students are responsible and intelligent; the opposing viewpoint was mostly from outside the University. However badly it turned out, if you read their writings, the "88" were trying to be on the side of students in some way, even while a lot of people outside the University were claiming that Duke was simply a bastion of white rapist privilege and that the University was going to use its wealth to cover it up (remember the first month of news?). I'm not saying that they did a particularly good job, or that some of them didn't get carried away, but they were trying to make a public statement that not all Duke students were rich white rapists just when the rest of the world assumed they were. When we (instructors, grad students, professors) talk to people at other institutions, they often assume not only that the stereotypes about Duke undergrads are true, but that we support them. It's like being an American in Europe, and having to respond to questions like, "Why do you think you can rule the world?" One has to express support and dismiss the stereotype, and it can be difficult. My point here is not to excuse, but simply to say that most Duke professors think very highly of Duke students, and are on their side. I hope that Duke students will take advantage of that, rather than letting a few cranks turn the school into a battlefield. And that goes for all us professors and instructors too.

(And please, you don't need to tell me about the pot-bangers, seeking to draw their sharpened pots and spoons across the throats of the lacrosse team and bath in their blood, all while worshipping the Baalim of Liberalism and Ashteroth of Political Correctness; I remember. But continually threatening the solidarity of the campus over the assumed subject of one comment in a year-and-a-half old statement made in the midst of chaos seems, well, kind of lame. And yeah, it makes you a crank.)Oh no! I must answer the question, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Group of 88?" Well, no. But seriously, most of the signers of the statement signed something that was simply a support of victims of rape and violence generally. It had nothing to do with the DA's case, did not in any way claim that any particular person was guilty of any particular crime, and the further statements and debate that turned it into something more than an attempt to reach out to victims had little to do with the signers, and for the most part was out of their control. Also, people talk about these people as if they were this organized group; they were just a bunch of people who signed a petition. So intention does matter: most intended to sign a statement supporting victims of rape and violence during a period of crisis, and there is no reason then for most of them to apologize for their actions. Are there a few academics and administrators whose apologies might be helpful? Sure, I don't disagree. Are the defendants and Durham in general owed an apology for the terrible improprieties of this case? Yes, definitely. But why do YOU need an apology from a bunch of professors who wanted to express their support for victims of rape and violence? What's the terrible pain you are suffering?When I said that the listening statement had nothing to do with the case, I meant that Nifong did not use the statement in trying to make his case; that is, it did not facilitate the case against the three defendants. Obviously it had something to do with case generally; i was responding to someone else's comment, and the context got lost.

Or whatever. I have learned that no student at Duke is racist or sexist, and that is a logical impossibility that a Duke student could commit a crime, and that all our professors should be fired and replaced by KC Johnson, in order to avoid the giant left-wing conspiracy that will elect Michael Moore president, outlaw Christianity, and force us all to listen to "This American Life."

By the way, BUY KC JOHNSON'S BOOK! ONLY $16.17 ON AMAZON! ALL YOUR QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED, AND ALL YOUR OPINIONS WILL BE PREPARED!And I'm a crank for saying that we should trust Duke students?Well, this is most likely pointless, but here we go:

No, the intent was not to support the falsely accused Duke students, and I didn't say that (hope you're not an English major). It was to support Duke students in general. In the face of continuous reports of Duke being racist, they wanted to make a public statement expressing that racism would not be tolerated, and that students deserved better. At that time, the media also reported that there had definitely been a rape, and so saying "whatever happened to this woman" was the least-accusatory way of stating the situation in terms of the facts at hand. It, for instance, allowed for the possibility that the rapists had not been Duke students, not lacrosse players, etc. It was prior to the indictments of the three players, and long before the factuality of the rape itself was questioned. Only much later, after the case began to fall apart, could the statement be interpreted as accusatory, but such an interpretation changes the intention of the original statement drastically.

In those circumstances, a straightforward denial of 1) the factuality of the rape or 2) that a Duke student might rape someone would have been preposterous. There is a history of wealthy white men getting away with similar crimes against African-Americans; denying the *possibility* that such a crime may have happened again is a denial of this history. But the blame of the listening statement was not on students, but on the institution. There is racism and sexism at Duke, and it is the responsibility of the institution to work against it. I think they saw the protests in general as protests against racism and sexism; I have spoken to several signatories who were mortified to see that people had posted pictures of lacrosse players and were calling for violence. It was certainly not the protests they intended to support. Again, the media had played up Duke's failure to address student misbehavior, especially along lines of race, gender and class, and the University's unclear response; this statement was responding to the media situation at hand, not the one to come, months later. Most of the protests were general, about racism or sexism, not specifically about the Duke players. While you might find such protests ineffective and perhaps self-congratulatory at times, I don't think there is anything wrong with opposing racism and sexism.

My original point in writing was not to discuss this badly burned-over conversation. Rather, it was to applaud Duke students for showing their maturity despite this fiasco, and that a real partnership of institution and students would both make students' lives better, and the University's "in loco parentis" role easier. I wanted to offer a way to make the policing of Duke both more effective and less oppressive. I think there should be more drinking on campus. I also wanted to emphasize the fact that the vast majority of Duke faculty and instructors, including myself, find Duke students to be wonderful, and should be considered allies. But apparently, since I don't want to complain about a bunch of professors who don't like rape or racism and put an ad in the paper about that 18 months ago, none of that is worth thinking about. I'm sorry.

So, Mr. Professor, you agree that the university DOES have a problem with racism and sexism as well as classism. Will you now admit that most, if not all, of the problem lies with the FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION much more than with the students. If not, maybe one day the blinders will come off and you will have an epiphany. BTW, don't be so jealous of KC. He did what some of you instructors at Dook should have done but didn't have the anatomical parts to follow it through.Watch as the city implodes around you. In short order, Durm will become a total welfare state. Ideologues like you should be in your element then. Reap what you sow. Let me see that silk purse you're gonna make from the sow's ear. Yeah, right.

"Instead of beating up the whole of Durham ... shouldn't we rather be hoping for full exposure (which, in the end, will cost most Durham citizens a bundle).

Really we're not all bad and not foolish enough to want to get involved in Durham politics -- other than to vote."

Anonymous 3:54 PM

You've posted a reasonable request. You and others might be interested in reading a tidbit posted on another message board by one of your Durham neighbors.

Instead of beating up the whole of Durham ... shouldn't we rather be hoping for full exposure (which, in the end, will cost most Durham citizens a bundle).

Really we're not all bad and not foolish enough to want to get involved in Durham politics -- other than to vote.

"I'm almost ashamed to admit it now but in the beginning I also believed Nifong and the stripper. Being a lifelong Durham resident and witness on many occasions to the behavior of Duke students it was easy. I also knew Nifong personally as my husband is a retired Durham police officer and my son played baseball with Nifong's son so I thought that he was an honorable man. I quickly learned that I had done what a lot of others had done and rushed to the wrong conclusion. I am currently reading the book by Coach Pressler and it's amazing how those kids were treated by Duke and the City of Durham. I watched and read all of the reports that I could and still am amazed by this book. The City and Duke are not finished by no stretch and rightfully so."

Unfortunately, the sound you hear is coming from a big wheel that has begin rolling down a steep North Carolina hill and many Durham residents - good and bad - are going to get crushed when it finally gets to them.

Lock and load, Debrah! Ashley has driven the H-S into the brackish backwaters of American journalism. Health to the alligators.

The photo of Curtis and Catotti (should one say Castrotti?) speaks volumes about these two twits. Clearly the plight of the wretched of the earth is weighing on their souls. I wonder, though, if they have the capacity to see themselves, and others of their ilk, as fellow members of the privileged classes that they so zealously denounce. But then, what's a little hypocrisy among friends, eh?

I am tired of the assertion that white men are guilty of raping black women. No one puts forth facts or evidence when they assert his as fact. There is just hyperbole. For example, the Duke Instructor says:

There is a history of wealthy white men getting away with similar crimes against African-Americans; denying the *possibility* that such a crime may have happened again is a denial of this history.

On what objective basis does he/she assert this conclusion? Please, educate me.

Please, someone...anyone...provide the proof...provide the facts...what are the statistics?

I'm getting really tired of the conclusion and its inflammatory consequence. If there are facts...I will listen and consider.

Unless there is evidence of a conviction of rape by a white man of a black woman then there is no evidence. Those are the facts that I'd like to see. Beyond that, it is a simply anecdotal stories of "he says -- she says" or the assertion that because there are many mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, etc., then certainly rape must have occurred.

Well, I am not convinced. An equally plausible hypothesis is that young black enslaved women coveted the opportunity to have sex with white men and pursued those opportunities with zeal, as an avenue to freedom.

I don't want to make light of your current issue, but if there's one thing in life that is a moving target, it is the sexual dynamics between men and women.

(Oops! Just in case 88-ers Kathy Rudy, Petey Sigal, or the orchid-as-vulva pheromone king Michael Hardt happen to be tuning in........all sexual relationships are of great importance...no matter which genders are interacting.....or with whatever inanimate object or plant derivative.)

6:31/KC Johnson, ya gotta do better than that old pal. You're making more and more little mistakes...I suggest you note more clearly where you've revised from the original post.

I'd also suggest that you pack up now and go home. You're mostly using this as self (-rightous) advertising for your book.

Some people might begin to think that you really are jealous that people who teach subjects of which you disapprove (ie, they don't think American political and consistitional history is the academic be all and end all) and that you like to go at a school of the high callibre that didn't hire you. (Yes, Greek chorus, KC Johnson is a "New York" boy--with that bow tie, maybe not. But face it; Brooklyn College is a fine local school.)

And, finally, that your favorite targets--perhaps, among many--seem to be AA women.

I can't imagine that your parents aren't a bit embarassed by your behavior.

I walked into a Borders in New Jersey, not far from where one of the falsely accused went to school. I saw Bill Clinton's new book prominently displayed, no sign of KC's book. I had to hunt down an employee who had to look up where they were keeping them, they were in the "law section" not with new releases or in front of the store.What is up with that? KC> you may want to speak to your publicist, it's the Borders on Route 10 in Livingston.It isn't one I've been in before, just happened to be in the neighborhood.

anon 10:47-It's really kind of sad - he has a good point about the downside to not letting students drink on campus, though he ignores the fact that it's a result of state and federal laws (Than you Liddy Dole for the national drinking age of 21, achieved by holding highway funds hostage to let the federal government bully states into doing what it wanted in a realm where it has no constitusional authority - in your small way you helped create the circumstances that engulfed one of your interns, who you then left to twist in the wind. If I lived in your state you'd be enough to make me vote for a Democrat.)

But the reactions to his loyalty to his fellow professors totally obscures anything else he has to say. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

Regarding the future of Ashley's Herald-Sun, I too wonder if it has one. ABC circulation figures due in October should provide evidence one way or the other.

Ashley practices journalism in a parallel universe. This guy isn't exactly the brightest candle in the chandelier -- he hooked up with the losers in the lax case, and hung on like a snapping turtle when any thinking person could see what was coming down. Why? I can only surmise his leftist ideology blinded him to the facts.

As folks on the editorial side say, never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion. But for the news side, it's the other way around. Ashley apparently thinks there's no difference.

And, for a certain segment of Durham, exemplified by Diane Catotti and her progressive (none dare call themselves liberal) crowd, Ashley's editorship no doubt ranks as the ne plus ultra of post-modern journalism.

The Ashley H-S might continue on as it is for quite a while with their admittedly scaled down version of the news.

They now concentrate on inner Durham and that's fine if your quest is an insular take on news. Durham is its own little creepy world.

(BTW, I went over there in early 2005 and talked to Robert Childress, the former publisher, before he became ill. I just really was complaining about the huge staff changes.)

Like that did any good. I wanted to case the place. LIS!

He was far and above Ashley as a human being, but then again, how do we know what his role would have been if he hadn't had to leave?

As you know, the only interest in Durham for a long while has been the comedy factor, but I do miss going to some of the restaurants I used to enjoy. Maybe I'll hold my nose and go see Giorgio again. :>)

Lastly, I cannot tell you my shock and disappointment with Greg Childress in all this. I always really liked him and had no idea he would have behaved the way he did. Seems Ashley's way is his way.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review